Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[garbon]

So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships?  Interesting.

Weak-minded? I think it is a question of priorities.

[Martinus]

I disagree. I think the society has a vested interest in promoting stable relationships between people (as long as it does not lose sight of individual rights of people involved and does not force them to stay in relationships against their will). This interest is there whether the couple of same sex or different sex.

So you think gays are so weak-minded that they need government to encourage them to enter stable relationships?  Interesting.

I was going to say that the government would have to force Marty into a stable relationship, not just encourage him, but that's not fair, because it seems like Marty might actually want to a certain extent to be in a stable relationship (though not married).

Actually you are quite wrong.

I had simply never met the right person before. I used to think it's impossible or at least will never happen to me.

However, in my mind's eye I can easily picture myself wearing a matching tux with my groom. And it would be the full blown thing, not some quick trip to the mayor. So there.

See, you assume too much about me.

[dps]

I was going to say that the government would have to force Marty into a stable relationship, not just encourage him, but that's not fair, because it seems like Marty might actually want to a certain extent to be in a stable relationship (though not married).

Actually you are quite wrong.

I had simply never met the right person before. I used to think it's impossible or at least will never happen to me.

I'm pretty sure that you've posted stuff to that effect before, which was what I was basing my statement on.

[Martinus]

I was going to say that the government would have to force Marty into a stable relationship, not just encourage him, but that's not fair, because it seems like Marty might actually want to a certain extent to be in a stable relationship (though not married).

Actually you are quite wrong.

I had simply never met the right person before. I used to think it's impossible or at least will never happen to me.

I'm pretty sure that you've posted stuff to that effect before, which was what I was basing my statement on.

Link me baby.

[grumbler]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

What will get repealed by referendum?  The Iowa constitution?

[Razgovory]

Anyway, it will get repealed by referendum because the religious groups of America have made it clear they'd rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars to stop people from being happy rather than, you know, feed the hungry.

What will get repealed by referendum?  The Iowa constitution?

First we repeal the constitution then we can do anything!

[Hansmeister]

Looks like a bunch of God-Emperors reading some magic tea leaves and divining completely new laws.  There's a place for this and it's called the legislature.  They're supposed to make laws.

It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy.  The logic is inescapable.

[grumbler]

It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy.  The logic is inescapable.

Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.

The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.

[Neil]

It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy.  The logic is inescapable.

Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.

The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.

They don't want monogamous marriage, in exactly the same way that faggots don't want to marry women.

Hans has defeated you in every way.  Feel shame.

[Hansmeister]

It won't be long before the Mormons and the muslims use the same argument for a constitutional right to poligamy.  The logic is inescapable.

Given that Muslims and Mormons would be asking for the exact same treatment under the law as non-Muslims and non-Mormons, what they would get is a right to monogamous marriage, which they already have.

The logic says any other conclusion is inescapably moronic.

Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already.  The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners.  At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.

[garbon]

Oh, Hans, you can be so cute.

[PDH]

I think Hans just wants a second wife.

[grumbler]

Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already.  The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners.  At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.

No, actually, gays do not.  They cannot marry people with whom they are in a loving monogamous relationship.  Banning gay marriage is no more an exercise in fairness than banning all marriages but gay ones would be.

And while polygamy may have actual historical background, and I do not oppose it, its legality or illegality is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not gays should have the right to marry monogamously.  If gays were asking for polygamous marriage, then you would have an argument.

[Neil]

Gays have a right to monogamous marriage already.  The limit of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman is certainly no more arbitrary as the limit to the number of marriage partners.  At least, unlike gay marriage, polygamie has an actual historic background.

No, actually, gays do not.  They cannot marry people with whom they are in a loving monogamous relationship.  Banning gay marriage is no more an exercise in fairness than banning all marriages but gay ones would be.

And while polygamy may have actual historical background, and I do not oppose it, its legality or illegality is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not gays should have the right to marry monogamously.  If gays were asking for polygamous marriage, then you would have an argument.

It's shocking to see you pushing your apples and oranges argument, when you should be feeling shame due to your defeat.

[Razgovory]

I think Hans just wants a second wife.

Why would someone want that?